1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to weedless fish hooks, specifically to an improved weedguard for a fish hook.
2. Description of Prior Art
Originally, weedguards constructed from wire were mounted on hooks to aid anglers in pursuing fresh water gamefish in and around weeds, brush, and other submerged obstacles. These wire constructions are intended to protect a baited hook from fouling on such obstacles until a fish takes the baited hook in its mouth. Then the action of the angler pulling on the line or "setting the hook" causes the weedguard to come in contact with the inside of the fish's mouth. The weedguard is thus deflected thereby exposing the hook point and enabling it to pierce the fish.
After experimenting with all available weedless hooks over a period of time, I have discovered that few if any of these hooks are able to cope with all the various types of weeds, cover, and underwater obstacles encountered by the angler. It has further been discovered that most if not all available wire weedguards on occasion fail to disengage as intended when an angler attempts to set the hook on a fish. This failure is a result of the wire weedguard becoming entangled around the hook's point and/or becoming trapped behind the hook's barb. The result is numerous lost fish.
All wire weedguards heretofore known suffer from one or more of a number of disadvantages:
(a) They allow the hook point to remain exposed in some degree to the underwater environment. This permits weeds to enter laterally behind the wire construction and become embedded on the hook point. This wastes valuable fishing time and ruins what might otherwise be a perfect bait presentation.
b) On occasion, the weedguard is deflected laterally instead of vertically when it encounters an obstacle or a fish's mouth. This lateral deflection causes the weedguard to disengage prematurely, or to roll over the hook point while the weedguard is still engaged. In the latter instance, the still-engaged weedguard then halts the progress of the point's penetration into the fish's mouth. Since the point cannot penetrate down to the hook's barb, the fish is free to wriggle off the hook. This results in numerous lost fish.
c) The tension of the weedguard cannot be adjusted without altering the position of the guard relative to the hook point. This makes it impossible to achieve a consistency of performance while allowing for a wide range of tension adjustments.
d) They have poor lateral stability, causing them to become twisted and bent easily. Most available weedguards become so distorted after catching only a few fish that they are rendered useless and must be discarded.
e) Because of the limitations inherent in their design, these weedguards are usually effective only when mounted onto long shank, narrow-gap hooks. However, such hooks are the least efficient at hooking and holding large-mouthed fish such as the black bass.
f) As mentioned above, these weedguards are normally mounted onto long shank, narrow-gap hooks. The geometry of such an assembly causes the deflecting arm(s) of the weedguard to be more or less in line with the direction of pull that the angler imparts on the fishing line. This arrangement occasionally results in the weedguard sliding over the interior of the fish's mouth without deflecting.